Am So., 14. Juni 2020 um 22:30 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 3:25 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen <xxxxxx@nieper-wisskirchen.de> wrote:
>
>> What do you think of the names
>>
>> `just->list' and `right->list' instead? If given a Nothing or a Left, they will return #f as a special case. It is an error to call them on any other value.
>
>
> just->list would imply that it is an error to call it on a non-Just.  I'll stick with "multitruth" even though it's a rather oddball word.

If you want to go with such a long word, `list/false' is not longer,
but maybe clearer. Why don't you like `->list*'?

>> With the correct specification and implementation of `maybe-unfold' according to the protocol, a Scheme implementation can raise an error if
>>
>> (generator-unfold GEN maybe-unfold)
>>
>> is called on a generator of length 2 or more.
>
>
> That pretty much decides me on this issue.  I do *not* believe that it is an error to unfold into a fixed-size container from a generator that can deliver more values than the fixed size.  In particular, there is nothing wrong with unfolding an infinite generator into a fixed-size container.  The additional values available from the generator are simply never used for anything,

That's not unfolding, the anamorphism, which `unfold` is supposed to
be by SRFI 1. Anamorphisms have to exhaust their argument (as they
potentially produce streams).

> As for super-generators, they don't satisfy the generator protocol (which is specifically defined, unlike the unfold protocol), so I don't care how well or badly they work with generator-unfold.

I didn't say that "super-generators" have to work with
`generator-unfold`. They would have their own
`super-generator-unfold`. But for such a thing to work, one needs a
uniform unfold protocol.

And even without a specified unfold protocol, it is pretty much clear
what the correct definition is in the same way as it is clear that 1
shouldn't be considered a prime number.